SEDITION

by: Kim Weissman
November 11, 2001

This week, Pakistan arrested a
leading Pakistani cleric and charged him with sedition.
His offense was to call for the ouster of the President of Pakistan,
General Pervez Musharraf. The Pakistani cleric was quoted as saying
about President Musharraf, "His government is illegal and
unconstitutional."

The dictionary defines "sedition" as "incitement of
discontent or rebellion against the government". In contrast, in this
country we have a Bill of Rights that includes the First Amendment,
which allows people to say pretty much anything they want with
impunity, no matter how idiotic or destructive, and not be arrested for
or charged with sedition. The sedition law currently being invoked
against some of America's domestic enemies requires some use of force
to overthrow, wage war against, or hinder or delay actions of the
government of the United States. Words alone, no matter how outrageous,
are not enough.

And so on November 5, 2001, in the midst of a war and a
time of national crisis (in which public confidence in its leadership
is always crucial), and taking full advantage of its Constitutional
protections, CNN decided that it would be proper to run a "news" story
called "Remembering Election 2000", rehashing the
2000 presidential election one year later. We recall the reactions of
partisan democrats (displaying sentiments shared by much of the media)
immediately following the Supreme Court's decision that effectively
ended Al Gore's unprecedented attempt to overturn the results of a
presidential election by, among other schemes, attempting to disqualify
the absentee ballots of many U.S. military people serving overseas at
that time — many of whom are now still serving overseas, in a war zone,
risking their lives:

"In Third World countries, when democratically cast
votes are not counted, or the person who most likely lost wins in a
highly questionable manner, we usually refer to that as a coup d'etat.
I see this decision as a potential threat to our democracy and
potentially destabilizing to our democratic institutions." —
Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL).

"If legitimacy comes from consent of the governed,
(Bush) did not get that. We have a difficulty certifying this on moral
grounds." — Rev. Jesse Jackson.

"Unfortunately, this splintered decision and its
unprecedented result will do nothing to heal the deep divide separating
the American people. At this time when so many of our government
institutions are being tested, the Senate now must serve as the
conscience of the nation." — Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

"At the end of the day, Democrats won that election."
— DNC Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

To which CNN added their own evaluations at the time:

"Bush will become the first president in more than a
century to take office without also winning the largest share of the
popular vote." "In an extraordinary late night ruling on Tuesday, the
Supreme Court agreed 7-2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court's
decision…effectively ceding Florida's 25 electoral votes and the
presidency to Bush…".

And now, in the midst of war a year later, we hear CNN
host Judy Woodruff revealing — what else? — a new poll by CNN/USA
Today/Gallup that "finds 50 percent of Americans say they believe
President Bush was elected fair and square. Another 32 percent say he
won on a technicality, while 15 percent maintain the election was
stolen." That result was little changed, Woodruff pointed out, from
"last December" when "opinions were about the same: 48 percent called
it fair and square; 32 percent saw a legal technicality; and 18 percent
said it was stolen."

CNN appears determined to continue doing everything it
can to undermine the president, even in time of war. This despite
multiple after-the-fact ballot recounts by many left-wing media outlets
that uniformly determined (to the left-wing media's profound
disappointment) Bush to have won even more of the popular votes than
democrats admit (a fact that none of the left-wing media allows to
dissuade them from displaying their still virulent prejudice against
Bush), and despite all the talk about bipartisanship and the need for
the country to unify in the war effort. The American people have shown
overwhelming support for President Bush since September 11, the
American people understand the very serious issues at stake in this
war, the American people know who their legitimate president is, and
the American people have put the leftist-spawned venom of last year's
election behind them. No so the media. So
out comes CNN with a poll, apparently still determined to try to
convince the American people that President Bush does not legitimately
hold office.

Which network is it that most prominently displays every
civilian casualty in Afghanistan?

Which network was it that sought to submit interview
questions to bin Laden as though he is some ordinary politician with
something serious to say ("Excuse us, Herr Hitler, please explain to
our audience why global war and genocide are acceptable national
policies.")?

And which network found it necessary to remind its
reporters, "As we get good reports from Taliban controlled Afghanistan,
we must redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply
reporting from their vantage or perspective. … I want to make sure
we're not used as a propaganda platform." The network in question is
CNN in each case. There was no indication whether the CNN memo also
contained an admonition against the continued efforts by its reporters
to undermine the legitimacy of President Bush in time of war and
national emergency. But CNN needn't worry about that. In this country
we have a Bill of Rights that includes the First Amendment, which
allows people, including the media, to say pretty much anything they
want with impunity, no matter how idiotic or destructive, and not be
arrested for or charged with sedition.

While the media pretends that absolute neutrality makes
them morally superior to those who
actually retain the ability to distinguish right from
wrong, such pretensions call into question, not their
neutrality, but their contact with reality. A few comparisons make this
startlingly clear.

Most people have heard by now of the comments made by
the president of ABC News to a group of journalism students. That media
mogul didn't think it proper for him to take a position on whether it
was right of wrong for the terrorists to attack the Pentagon. If we do
not go so far as to question the media's patriotism, we are certainly
justified in doubting their plain common sense
and their ability to make rational judgments.

Compare the ABC president's remarks with the reaction of
large segments of the public in, of all places, Iran. It has been
reported that, following the September 11 attacks, thousands of
ordinary Iranians gathered in the streets to hold candlelight vigils in
sympathy for the Americans killed in those attacks. Further, there have
been demonstrations in Iran in recent weeks during which protesters
(unlike American protesters) shouted their support for the American war
against terrorism. Compare that to those in our media who don't
consider it appropriate to wear an American flag pin in sympathy with
those killed on September 11, or display any support for the nation
that defends their freedom.

Then consider the American media's (and American
pacifist protesters') reactions to a few accidental civilian casualties
in Afghanistan. While magnifying and lamenting every accidental
civilian death in Afghanistan, many in the American media seem to have
forgotten about the thousands of civilians in this county who were intentionally
massacred by the terrorists on September 11. Such muddled morality is
absent from those on the front lines of this war. Some of those
accidental civilian casualties occurred on the front lines between the
Northern Alliance and their taliban enemies. Yet the reaction from
friends and relatives of those killed was an
understanding that such deaths were not intentional, and
they expressed the desire that American airstrikes continue. They
understand that if innocent people in their villages are killed, the
fault lies with the taliban, and if the attacks help drive the taliban
out, that is a price they are willing to pay. Far from demanding that
American airstrikes be moderated or cease entirely (as western
pacifists, the United Nations, and the Red Cross demand) Northern
Alliance commanders and anti-taliban civilians are pleased that
American airstrikes have intensified, and want more.

Unlike our media and hand-wringing
pacifists, those living under tyranny know that freedom isn't free, and
that the price of freedom can sometimes be heavy.

The above article is the property (copyright)
of Kim Weissman, and is reprinted with his permission.
Contact him prior to reproducing.